SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for stimulant use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy-Based Digital Therapeutics for Substance Use Disorder: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a widely used psychosocial intervention for stimulant use disorder (SUD). However, its independent efficacy is not well established, as previous reviews often combine it with other interventions or compare it to comparators with active components. To clarify its specific contribution, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of standalone CBT compared to minimal-treatment controls for achieving abstinence in individuals with SUD. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library through May 15, 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared standalone CBT with minimal-treatment comparators, such as treatment-as-usual or wait-list controls, for individuals with SUD. The primary outcome was short-term stimulant abstinence. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for risk of bias assessment and pooled odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251012327). Results: Nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria, with eight trials (849 participants) included in the meta-analysis. Standalone CBT was associated with higher odds of achieving short-term (4-24 weeks) stimulant abstinence compared to minimal-treatment controls (OR = 2.88, 95% CI = 1.08-7.70), although between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I² = 75.62%). The certainty of this evidence was rated as low using the GRADE approach, due to risk of bias and imprecision. Treatment dropout rates were similar between CBT and control groups (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.67-1.91), and no CBT-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The findings suggest that standalone CBT may increase short-term abstinence from stimulants. However, given the low certainty of the evidence, the effect estimate should be interpreted cautiously, and more high-quality research is needed. This research was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251012327.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.